Troop convoys should be assignable to combat fleets

[DicRoNero]

Like planes are to armies, albeit it's a bit different since planes operate at another layer.

That's probably a long and laborious read, but hopefully it somewhat contributes to understanding why naval side of the game is still very poor - both balance and handling wise.

Anyways, the problem is this:

As combat fleet/patrol group/strike force and whatnot acts as a single entity, it commits all the ships into any fight it gets dragged into, and those would stay there until the battle is over - even if part of the fleet goes beyond the curtain into 'disangaged' mode. (By the way, ships in this mode consume fuel at max rate, and retreated SHBBs floating in nowhere awaiting for the battle involving Subs to resolve is just hilarious)

This way, if your combined [fleet+army] operations involve several divisions, it is common to see some of those getting 'intercepted' by a wolfpack of Subs. In turn, these Subs pin your whole task force and open up possibilties for another wolfpack to strike.

If you happen to have several task forces on duty, there's no way to prohibit them interfering into a fight where their presence might be completely superfluous. These multiple task forces of yours would 'happily' merge into one knot of a battle, leaving the rest of the convoys unguarded.

Given how long it takes to chase off even the poorest Subs, and how vulnerable sea-faring troops are when actually hit, it's a real pain to manage safe landings or travelling - even with a dominant navy. Ideally, to avoid weird losses, one moves one division per each zone and guards each zone by a separate force - yeah. (otherwise, see the extras at the end. For now, keep reading).

Instead, army movement at unsafe sea should act like this.

• Generic movement. You park both your task force of choice and a few divisions in a port and 'merge' them into a Convoy Order. This now acts as a Meta-Unit, which both moves and fights as one, following all the rules which are generally applied to task forces.

• Invasion (involving multiple ports of departure). You pick your divisions and click around as normal to set ports, landings and fancy arrows in between, no change here. But then if you click that mighty (?) Naval Invasion Support, the task force in question automatically (if checkboxed!) splits evenly across all ports and invasion routes, and a whole pack of Meta-Units (see above) appears. Those Meta-Units are traced separately and may end up together in the same battle under the same rules as current task forces, but the point is that no convoy with troops is ever left on its own and is always followed by at least *some* ships for protection.

Under the current rules as it is now, I fail to see why combat ships explicitly set to guard sailing troops await until those are attacked, and then behave in utterly weird fashion...

---
The extras, "or how I onced moved 3 divisions guarded by 2 super-fleets".

Spoiler: 3 divisions sail off, one gets 'intercepted'

Spoiler: Both task forces set to Support readily engage

Spoiler: The enemy is chased off - only to appear a hundred miles away right before the divisions he initially missed

Spoiler: A friendly task force finally frees itself from the previous battle and now joins this one - after the losses already in place

While these pics date back to December '19 and IIRC a few bandaids were introduced (like cooldowns for some actions by Subs), it doesn't make the point any less valid for a simple reason the enemy had just one single pack of 10 subs - now imagine him running many wolfpacks (over here at 1.9.3, I run just two packs of outdated subs and the AI (Germany, Great Britain and Italy combined) is already struggling despite his 'supremacy'. To add insult to the injury, I'm also excercising my other fleet right in the same zone - what is that 'supremacy' worth, then?).

Got back to this game after 10 months to check out LaR and how it plays. Is it that the naval side is still just that - poor, redundant, convoluted and bugged?

 

[Mousetick]

So you lost 1 troop convoy and you want to add another complicated micro-managed invasion mechanic on top of the existing ones because of that one incident?

I see you have no fuel. Ships can't move and fight properly without fuel. Repeat the same scenario in the same conditions again, but this time with enough fuel for your invasion support task forces to operate at full efficiency, and see how that plays out.

 

[DicRoNero]

So you lost 1 troop convoy and you want to add another complicated micro-managed invasion mechanic on top of the existing ones because of that one incident?

I see you have no fuel. Ships can't move and fight properly without fuel. Repeat the same scenario in the same conditions again, but this time with enough fuel for your invasion support task forces to operate at full efficiency, and see how that plays out.

Over the years, I've lost many more in similar circumstances. It's just this very example happening in totally 'safe' conditions with very few acting units, so easy to convey my point on mechanics.

But a valid point of yours with fuel, thanks. I'll maybe try to address it later, but the last screenshot tells it's fundamentally just as I elaborate: two my sets of poor subs spread the enemy thin and occasionally manage to sink enemy troop convoys despite him enjoying as much of supremacy as he possibly could.

How countering that now is NOT a complicated micro-managed stuff already? It's not like I was even trying to set up anything powerful here, just few outdated rusty tubs sailed out into a seemingly suicide mission without any reasonable chance of success. Yet they sink [guarded!] stuff just fine, and the output far exceeds the investments. But if such a lazy try works already mechanics wise, how does one fight against properly designed raider forces? A genuine question here, as I so far have failed to see any difference to what I experienced before.

 

[Mousetick]

About your suggestion for generic troop movement: you can achieve the same result with a Naval Invasion Support mission (you can naval invade a friendly territory, even though it may not be obvious, it's possible) but it's more difficult as it requires more than 50% naval suppremacy in all traversed sea zones, or you can use the Convoy Escort mission to scare off raiders. The game gives you the tools, it's a matter of being aware of them.

I'll maybe try to address it later, but the last screenshot tells it's fundamentally just as I elaborated: two my sets of poor subs spread the enemy thin and occasionally manage to sink enemy troop convoys despite him enjoying as much of a supremacy as he possibly could.

That may be a misunderstanding of what Naval Supremacy represents in game. Naval Supremacy is a measure of naval forces potentially put into action in the sea zone. Those forces may be stuck in port for repair, or out of fuel. They're present, but impotent (in your screenshot, you can see the line "Enemy ships with orders to engage: 0"). And so your subs can wreak havoc unimpeded.

Naval supremacy is only significant as a requirement for naval invasions. Otherwise it can be pretty much ignored.

 

[Mousetick]

How would your suggestion(s) solve the issue of troop convoys being intercepted and sunk, and can you imagine how that would work in reality? If the ships escorting the convoys, whether they are on naval Invasion Support or part of your so-called Meta-Unit, are engaged in a naval battle, or pursued by enemy ships, why would they be invulnerable and capable of completing their mission undeterred to the destination? What would happen if they are bombed from the air or if they bump into naval mines? It seems you want a magical game rule that protects your troop convoys from start to destination no matter what happens along the way.

Over the years, I've lost many more in similar circumstances. It's just this very example happening in totally 'safe' conditions with very few acting units, so easy to convey my point on mechanics.

Totally 'safe' conditions in your view perhaps. Were they really safe? Hard to tell from the information you have provided, but seeing the screenshots, with enemy submarines roaming around and apparently one enemy strike force intervening, and your side lacking fuel, I'd say it was hardly safe.

But if such a lazy try works already mechanics wise, how does one fight against properly designed raider forces? A genuine question here, as I so far have failed to see any difference to what I experienced before.

As I mentioned above, the enemy's naval supremacy is not an impediment to your ability to raid their convoys. Another likely reason why the enemy has such high naval supremacy but is doing nothing against you in your other example, other than being out of fuel, is that it has task forces with big capital ships set on Naval Invasion support. These task forces are just waiting in port and are harmless, but are nevertheless accounted for in the enemy's naval supremacy calculation.

To fight and eliminate properly designed naval raider forces, you can:
1. use naval bombers if within range
2. use task forces on Patrol mission
3. add radar and planes coverage for better detection

To avoid or scare away naval raider forces, you can:
1. use task forces on Convoy Escort mission
2. block off specific sea regions for convoy passage (requires MtG, should work for troops as well as goods transport)

If there are enemy submarines or naval bombers operating in the regions you intend to pass thru while naval invading, it's not safe, and it's not a good idea to launch a naval invasion even if you satisfy all requirements (including more than 50% naval supremacy) - unless you're prepared to lose a few convoys in the process: you might be unlucky or your escorting ships/planes might be hampered in some way (lack of fuel, mines, ...).

 

[DicRoNero]

That may be a misunderstanding of what Naval Supremacy represents in game. Naval Supremacy is a measure of naval forces potentially put into action in the sea zone. Those forces may be stuck in port for repair, or out of fuel. They're present, but impotent (in your screenshot, you can see the line "Enemy ships with orders to engage: 0"). And so your subs can wreak havoc unimpeded.

Naval supremacy is only significant as a requirement for naval invasions. Otherwise it can be pretty much ignored.

I simply can't mock the term enough, don't take it too seriously

As to "impotent" or "unimpeded", this is simply untrue. It's actually you who might have misunderstanding here:

Same day, same naval forces and outline, just a few hours later - and we see that allegedly zero ships set to engage in fact do engage just fine simply cause of their duty (convoy protection). The problem is that instead of being present from hour 0, they await outside until several convoy ships are already down, drowning thousands of men for no reason whatsoever (apart from messy mechanics).

Now, should it have happened under my suggested rules, those convoy ships carrying a division would have been protected since the very start - if anything, by 1 or 2 or w/e number of ships, which still is a far better option against any battle involving subs. This Meta Unit (of naval forces with land units attached) would have then proceeded to the next battle or to its final destination.

 

[Mousetick]

As to "impotent" or "unimpeded", this is simply untrue. It's actually you who might have misunderstanding here:

Can you explain what your screenshot is supposed to demonstrate? Because I don't understand. All I see in the naval battle panel are your subs sinking enemy (not sure which country) convoys.

Same day, same naval forces and outline, just a few hours later - and we see that allegedly zero ships set to engage in fact do engage just fine simply cause of their duty (convoy protection). The problem is that instead of being present from hour 0, they await outside until several convoy ships are already down, drowning thousands of men for no reason whatsoever (apart from messy mechanics).

The enemy could be slowed down if it lacks fuel and/or encounters mines. It could also be operating at low efficiency if it uses an insufficient number of ships to cover all the sea regions assigned to convoy escort. Assuming the enemy task force is actually on convoy escort duty, it could be on patrol instead, for all we know.

 

[Secret Master]

The problem is that instead of being present from hour 0, they await outside until several convoy ships are already down, drowning thousands of men for no reason whatsoever (apart from messy mechanics).

Convoy escort efficiency is the enemy here. There's a reason some naval doctrines buff this value.

First of all, it's worth understanding that even when ships are set to escort convoys, they can only be in one battle at a time. Second of all, they have an efficiency at this task that is based on a number of factors (number of ships assigned, how many task forces they are broken up into, number of sea regions they mission covers, and so on). Third, troop invasions are often in multiple "groups," so they can all be intercepted in separate naval battles. Fourth, and this is something that is not obvious: ships assigned to convoy escort are assigned on a task force basis. That means if I put 100 DDs in a single task force, and assign it to convoy escort, the entire group of DDs remains in a single group and tries to escort convoys. (You allude to this already, but it's worth pointing out for everyone.) And fifth, the screening ratio means that large amphibious invasions require a crap ton of DDs to screen adequately. In every screenshot you have in your first post, I see screening values that are less than 50%. That's just an invitation to get your troops sunk on the way.

Your first post bears out what I am saying. You use two "super fleets" to "cover" the invasion, but what I see is a fleet inadequate to the task of escorting an invasion through areas where submarines are known to operate. You have "naval supremacy" in the sense that you can launch the invasion, but I don't think you have the naval strength to actually do what you want to do.

Personally, I wouldn't waste time with large invasions unless I have control of the skies over the invasion path. Bombing submarines with air power will eventually drive them off or kill them, removing the problem. But if the enemy has a lot of subs, and you insist on invading, you need a ton of screens and they need to be set up right and you need some doctrines to successfully escort those invasions.

Don't take my word for it. Ask Japan in our MP game last night. Screening ratio is really important so that the troop convoys and Yamatos don't eat torpedoes.

 

[DicRoNero]

@Secret Master, you - deliberately or not - mention a whole set of reasons why I call the naval game "poor, redundant, convoluted". And you further reinforce my belief.

You essentially say in your paragraphs #1 and #3 that:

- one needs enormous number of DDs and researched doctrines just to move troops around safely, even when skies and sea surface are both secured
- both the DD numbers and doctrines far outmatch those required to smash enemy fleets and beyond mere escorting serve you no good [especially barebones DDs built for sheer numbers due to mechanics]
- the same effect [moving troops around safely] may be achieved far easier by the airforce, which also comes handy in many other cases prior and after the local naval affairs

As to my super-fleets. Firstly, I'm fine with some ships of mine getting a torpedo or two due to poor screening (that's not my complaint at all). Then, I called them super for this very reason (literally the same fleet): a battle starts, the battle ends. If a fleet takes on that many enemies, sinks them with astonishing result, then surely it is good enough to escort 3 divisions w/o losing the contact out of sheer fright? Finally, this is all largely irrelevant since no amount of ships could deal with the mechanics you and me are both aware of and which you so nicely enroll in your post.

In my ideal world, the player possesing 50 DDs and having those set in a designated seazone should NOT experience his slowboating land troops being separated from their cover. Subs still should be allowed to suicide-run into those convoy orders (if so set), but the K/D ratio should ensure this tactics to be utterly stupid, just like it is stupid to assign your 50 bombers to go bomb the enemy despite him already running 1000 fighters in the same zone. Sure, you might bring a few pieces down, but it's not worth it.

Same should apply to navies: few suicidal subs should not at once bring 1/3 of a division down just cause they *dared*. IRL no single ship would ever haul that many of combat-ready troops, those were spread much thinner. Here in HoI4, merely 3 convoy steamers ferry 10-20k men, their equipment and supplies for a few days. And go down in seconds without any recovery.

I surely know how to play "optimally", but setting those kind of bases and levelling the sea with TACs just makes one ask: why did he bother with surface fleets when those are impotent on their own even under clear skies and with the only threat coming from the deep?..

 

[Secret Master]

In my ideal world, the player possesing 50 DDs and having those set in a designated seazone should NOT experience his slowboating land troops being separated from their cover.

They won't be separated if you have enough DDs, the right doctrines, and you assign sea zones correctly for convoy escorting. I don't have a problem with DDs separating from their convoys when I use them properly.

- one needs enormous number of DDs and researched doctrines just to move troops around safely, even when skies and sea surface are both secured

It doesn't sound like you have secured anything if submarines are roving the area freely. And if you don't think the US and UK put real effort into DDs and doctrines during the actual war, then I don't know what to tell you. Japan's failure to build enough DDs to escort her merchant marine, and the failure to properly develop doctrines related to escorting convoys, resulted in the obliteration of her merchant marine.

- both the DD numbers and doctrines far outmatch those required to smash enemy fleets and beyond mere escorting serve you no good

You know who else thought about smashing enemy fleets in big battles but failed to escort their convoys well? Japan. And it was to their detriment.

Naval warfare in the period was heavily focused on control of sea routes and communication lines. Controlling those lines of communication and securing the sea routes is 75% of the navy's job in WW2.

You can sink every battleship in the Pacific at anchor in a single lightning strike, but that doesn't mean you control the Pacific ocean.

- the same effect [moving troops around safely] may be achieved far easier by the airforce, which also comes handy in many other cases prior and after the local naval affairs

Why would that surprise you? Air power was critical to naval operations in the war. It was crucial to ending the u-boat threat in the Atlantic.

There's a reason the Royal Navy didn't spend a lot of time wandering around the German coast during the war. There's a reason why in the planning for Operation Sea Lion, one of the crucial parts of the plan was that the RAF had to be wiped out.

And we don't even have time to go into the plans for invading Japan and the preparations the USN made for dealing with hordes of kamikaze aircraft. (Or, even more telling, how Japan hoarded aircraft and remaining fuel to fight the invasion of the home islands.)

levelling the sea with TACs just makes one ask: why did he bother with surface fleets when those are impotent on their own even under clear skies and with the only threat coming from the deep?..

Well, capital ships are meant to be impotent against submarines. But with proper design, enough of them, and some doctrines, there's no reason you can't screen your invasions from submarines.

It's also worth noting that while BBs, BCs, and CAs are basically a waste against submarines, nothing stops you from bringing your own air power in the form of aircraft carriers.

Or, alternatively, you ignore losses to submarines and just invade anyway.